( 1 ) ONE Rame Gowda got by a partition an extent of land measuring 30-1/2 guntas in Survey No. 161/1a of chinakurali village Pandavapura Taluk. Out of that, he sold 18 guntas of land to the petitioner Ninge Gowda by a registered sale deed dated 16th August, 1975. Thereupon, the wife and three children of Rame Gowda presented a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, mandya under S. 39 of the Karnataka prevention of Fragmention and consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 ("the act" ). Without even a notice to the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner held that the sale was void because the land sold was a fragment as defined under the said Act. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of the deputy Commissioner before the karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal no doubt, held that the Deputy commissioner ought not to have made the order without hearing the petitioner. Yet it confirmed the order of the Deputy commissioner on the sole ground that there was no valid defence for the petitioner in the case. It held that the alienation made by Rame Gowda was in clear transgression of the provisions of S. 6 of the Act. The validity of these orders is called into question in this w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document